Ann: Material Revenues Confirmed from Non-Pharma Business Units, page-48

First 48 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
thelearner

559 Posts.

69

05/06/19

03:47

Post #: 38910186
Share

Originally posted by Footmax: ↑

First of all, welcome back Learner.

There were 5 individual contracts - each of $4-8mil each. Adding up to the $40mil total.You and I will have to read back on them to know why there were that many - to be honest I recall the reason why. I have sort of moved on and relegated the VC fiasco to the history I don't want to remember pile

The first contract was for $4 which included a "sign on" amount of $1mil.

I suspect (but obviously don't know for sure) that it is the $1mil that MXC wants to recover - GBP625k would have been roughly in the $1mil AUD area when legal action was announced. - it is now about $1.1mil AUD. MXC may have thought it was easier to chase just that "deposit" given there was a lot of noise of quality control and damaged goods from VC over the first 12 months of the contract period - so that could get very messy if VC argued that it was not able to uphold its end of the bargain because of circumstances outside of its control.

Just a word on arbitration based on my very limited exposure to the process. I can understand that VC would go down this route. In my non legal view the party that has a weaker case would find a decision from an arbitrator much better - the arbitrator would award the appropriate damages but not impose additional sanctions for wrong doing etc - that is not what the arbitration court is for. A regular court may do otherwise depending on what facts come out.

The bad news:
1) Arbitration - if protracted - can be expensive.
2) Arbitration is not fast.
3) When the parties sign up they normally hand over full power to the arbitrator - in other words it is winner take all - there is no appeal process - the parties sign on for that at the beginning of the process - so the arbitrators decision is final - and there is no room for appeals on law or fact.

Expand

Thank you. All very nice, still doesn't address that 8 months ago they supposedly sued them in court and there hasn't been any mention of both sides agreeing to arbitration and the company dropping the suit.

it doesn't explain the fact that they announced that they signed a binding contract for $40 million, without any mention of "5 contracts", which is a very strange contract, instead of a stage-by-stage contract, or if-then and one that I haven't encountered until you mentioned it now. Any one else seen this "5 contracts" story before?

I see you still believe their "damaged delivery" story. My oh my.

MXC Price at posting: 5.4¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
2 Upvote

1 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

M4M

Macro, Norden set up transport solutions initiative for West Pilbara

NVU

Nanoveu surges 10% after benchmark testing for new AI chip begins

IRX

InhaleRX snags $38.5M in funding from VC biotech funder Clendon

SWP

Swoop lobs $18M offer at microcap telecom Vonex – in which it holds 19.9%

TLG

Talga Group wins key permit for flagship graphite mine in Sweden

What's causing the cost-of-living crisis, and how to navigate it

Week 42 Wrap: HotCopper's top picks; new ASX 200 record; world yawns at war

SNX

Sierra Nevada raises $2M for silver exploration at Blackhawk

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

MTH

Mithril's drilling in Mexico picks up silver at 997g/t, gold at 28g/t